The Energon Pub

Steven Spielberg is undoubtably an entertainment genius, and to me he is one of the best directors around. He has done many films in his career( no duh) but I wanted to ask which kind of Spielberg films, like the ones he directed and produced, do you prefer? His serious work or his popcorn work?

Examples of his serious work-
Schindler's List
Saving Private Ryan
Munich
Flags of our Fathers
Band of Brothers
Amistad
Empire of the sun

Examples of popcorn-
Jaws
Indy jones
Jurassic Park
Roger Rabbit
Back to the future
Goonies
Gremlins
Men in Black
TF

For me personally, I'd say popcorn. Simply because I've seen those title so many times than I have with his serious work.

I'd have to say popcorn as well, since I haven't seen any of his serious films. To be fair, though, his popcorn movies aren't entirely brainless.

I thought Back to the Future and Roger Rabbit were mainly Robert Zemeckis' films, though (unlike TF where Spielburg had some input), and I didn't know Spielburg had any input in Men in Black either. Meanwhile, I'd argue that "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is his most iconic serious work. (Possibly "A.I." in recent years, too.)

I would say his popcorn stuff. I've seen some of his serious stuff and it is very serious and depressing but in a good way. I'd rather be at the edge of my seat from excitement, on the floor laughing, or scared out of my mind. Yeah Definately his popcorn stuff.

Popcorn stuff, with stuff like Roger Rabbit and Gremlins, you can just sit down and watch, but with Schindler's List, Munich and the like, while they are all superb movies, you have to be in a certain mood to watch them.

If I see Roger Rabbit on, I'll sit and watch it anytime, but if I saw Schindler's List on, I'd see if there was anything else on first, then go through my movies, On Demand, and the like before actually staying at the channel and watching it.

Senor Hugo wrote:Popcorn stuff, with stuff like Roger Rabbit and Gremlins, you can just sit down and watch, but with Schindler's List, Munich and the like, while they are all superb movies, you have to be in a certain mood to watch them.

If I see Roger Rabbit on, I'll sit and watch it anytime, but if I saw Schindler's List on, I'd see if there was anything else on first, then go through my movies, On Demand, and the like before actually staying at the channel and watching it.

Absolutely!

Defcon! wrote:

Senor Hugo wrote:Popcorn stuff, with stuff like Roger Rabbit and Gremlins, you can just sit down and watch, but with Schindler's List, Munich and the like, while they are all superb movies, you have to be in a certain mood to watch them.

If I see Roger Rabbit on, I'll sit and watch it anytime, but if I saw Schindler's List on, I'd see if there was anything else on first, then go through my movies, On Demand, and the like before actually staying at the channel and watching it.

Absolutely!

I too agree

I like a mix of both. Schindler's List is one of my favorite movies of all time. But overall, I'd say popcorn is probably more entertaining. One of my favorites is Minority Report. I love that movie.

I probably prefer his serious work more because it's harder for
me to enjoy a lot of his popcorn movies now of days, I enjoy
most (not all his of his) movies equally, but if push came to shove I'll take films like Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan and A.I. over The Jurassic Park trilogy, Indiana Jones saga, E.T., 1941, and Jaws because they move me as well entertain me.
I want to point out that I have seen and enjoyed The Jurassic Park Trilogy, The Indiana Jones saga, E.T., 1941, and Jaws but
as much as I enjoyed them films like Schinder's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, and A.I. I enjoy more than the others.

spielberg didnt direct gremlins, men in black, back to the future, transformers, roger rabbit, flags of our fathers or band of brothers...

But to answer the question i like all his work but i would choose a popcorn flick over something more serious anyday.

Sonray wrote:spielberg didnt direct gremlins, men in black, back to the future, transformers, roger rabbit, flags of our fathers or band of brothers...

But to answer the question i like all his work but i would choose a popcorn flick over something more serious anyday.

He was a producer or executive producer on those films though. So it still would have been marketed as a Speilberg film. Especially since he seems to enjoy producing much more than directing, more control or something like that.

I like more of his popcorn stuff, but Band of Brother's was great.

Senor Hugo wrote:

Sonray wrote:spielberg didnt direct gremlins, men in black, back to the future, transformers, roger rabbit, flags of our fathers or band of brothers...

But to answer the question i like all his work but i would choose a popcorn flick over something more serious anyday.

He was a producer or executive producer on those films though. So it still would have been marketed as a Speilberg film. Especially since he seems to enjoy producing much more than directing, more control or something like that.

Yes but being a producer doesnt make it his film or is considered as much "his work" as something that he would have actually directed ya see? If the film says "directed by joe shmoe and produced by steven spielberg" that means the film will have high production values but you wont be watching a steven spielberg film, you'll be watching a joe shmoe film. Do you get what im trying to say?

Sonray wrote:

Senor Hugo wrote:

Sonray wrote:spielberg didnt direct gremlins, men in black, back to the future, transformers, roger rabbit, flags of our fathers or band of brothers...

But to answer the question i like all his work but i would choose a popcorn flick over something more serious anyday.

He was a producer or executive producer on those films though. So it still would have been marketed as a Speilberg film. Especially since he seems to enjoy producing much more than directing, more control or something like that.

Yes but being a producer doesnt make it his film or is considered as much "his work" as something that he would have actually directed ya see? If the film says "directed by joe shmoe and produced by steven spielberg" that means the film will have high production values but you wont be watching a steven spielberg film, you'll be watching a joe shmoe film. Do you get what im trying to say?

Yes, I do get it. But do you understand what I'm saying? If Steven Speilberg is producing a film, they(the studio) will market it as a Steven Speilberg film, by using stuff like "Steven Speilberg Presents" or the like. Which is what the studios do. So even though he didn't direct the films, the films are put into his corner anyway, and are usually seen as a Steven Speilberg film.

I get what you are saying. Thing is the films he has produced i have never seen advertised as "a film by steven spielberg", only "produced by" or "presents". Yes they can be marketed as spielberg movies but the fact is you wont be watching a spielberg movie. He has a very unique style of directing so you know when you are watching a movie with him behind a camera and a movie with him sitting next to a different director giving him money to buy more props with.

Just look at JP3 for example, it was produced by spielberg but some other guy directed it and it really shows. You just cant beat old stevie.

I'll only count the movies he's directed. Producers honestly have little impact on the movie they're attached to.

So of those I would easily give it to the popcorns. Munich was one of the most boring and drawn out movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Yay lets visit some ranch out in the middle of nowhere for half the movie. What a waste of $8.00

Though I hate a lot of his popcorn flicks as well. WotW was freaking bad.

War of the Worlds had a lot of potential. I can't quite pin down exactly where it went wrong. But Minority Report--now THAT is perfect science fiction. Tom Cruise may be batsh*t crazy in real life, but he can make a good movie now and then!

I loved War Of The Worlds. What made it unique and probably why people seem to hate it is because it wasn't the stereotypical, world gets destroyed by aliens blockbuster.

It stayed true to the original story by HG Wells, which was a story about a man trying to survive and keep his family alive whilst the entire planet gets destroyed around him. The focus of the book was on him and not the aliens killing everything that moves. To me it was one of the superior blockbusters of that year and by Speilberg altogether as it did things differently for once, instead of the typical cliche sci fi disaster movie where you see generals pushing miniature warships around on a table and forging strike attacks against the aliens and what have you.

To me, taking the normal brainless blockbuster formula and taking it in a different direction was a bold and brave move by Spielberg and thats why i liked his version of War Of The Worlds so much.

It was certainly up to the standard of his other great sci-fi movies like A.I. and Minority Report and Close Encounters.

I think to me it wasn't the plot itself that slightly irked me. I think it was some of the characters. Believe me, the first time I saw the movie I thought it was like a huge ongoing nightmare (in a good way). It isn't up there with Independence Day, of similar plot but a way more heroic ending, but that's ok. I bought the movie for five dollars at Hastings and it's been watched a couple times. I'd give it an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes perhaps.

I like more of the popcorn, even though I personally enjoy Munich the most in terms or his work.

Definatly popcorn

Thats how he became famous.

But after Jurassic Park any movie he has done doesn't have that Speilberg feel like in ET,Gremlins or Goonies

Wheeljack35 wrote:Definatly popcorn

Thats how he became famous.

But after Jurassic Park any movie he has done doesn't have that Speilberg feel like in ET,Gremlins or Goonies

Again...he didnt direct Gremlins or Goonies, so they dont count as Spielberg movies.

Sonray wrote:

Wheeljack35 wrote:Definatly popcorn

Thats how he became famous.

But after Jurassic Park any movie he has done doesn't have that Speilberg feel like in ET,Gremlins or Goonies

Again...he didnt direct Gremlins or Goonies, so they dont count as Spielberg movies.

Goonies is credited as a Spielberg produced movie.

and since the original question was:

Keeperofthespark wrote:Steven Spielberg is undoubtably an entertainment genius, and to me he is one of the best directors around. He has done many films in his career( no duh) but I wanted to ask which kind of Spielberg films, like the ones he directed and produced, do you prefer?

the little spat here should problably be friggen dropped.

I guess it depends on what the OP's actual intent with the question was as to whether the point is worth debating or not. Is he wondering which is better, Spielburg's serious creativity or "popcorn" creativity, or is he just interested in comparing Amblin Entertaiment's films?

Its not a Spielberg movie though, it wasn't directed by him and thus isn't "a film by Steven Spielberg"! Like somebody already pointed out, being a producer or executive producer gives you little to no creative input on the film. The style and look and feel of the film will all be the vision of the director, so if the director isn't Spielberg the film wont look, feel, or even sound like a Spielberg film.

What is so hard to understand here? By this silly logic that would mean The Rock isn't a Micheal Bay film, but a Jerry Bruckhiemer film, same thing for every other Bay flick apart from Transformers so does this make sense to you?

Same goes for Pirates of the Caribbean, and Spielberg's own movies as most of those are produced by other people, like War Of the Worlds...not a Spielberg movie because it is produced by Colin Wilson and Kathleen Kennedy, and executive producer is Paula Wagner. This also means The Matrix isn't a Wachowski brothers film, but instead is a film by Joel Silver as he produced it so i guess that makes it his film right? You see the problem here?

So unless Spielberg DIRECTED the movie, it isn't a Steven Spielberg movie!

Well, he did say directed and produced...

I much prefer a good action flick over a drama any day.